Two Communities’ Views on Test Fairness

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2022.2087624
D. Gitomer, Emi Iwatani
{"title":"Two Communities’ Views on Test Fairness","authors":"D. Gitomer, Emi Iwatani","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2087624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The education measurement community has centered the idea of test fairness in both theory and practice. Yet, racial justice advocates in education research and practice (the racial justice community) have consistently critiqued that assessments are hardly fair and play a critical and outsized role in contributing to racial and social inequities in the educational system and larger society. We attempt to unpack two communities’ different perspectives and different conclusions about fairness and assessments. We argue that these differences are rooted in the historical makeup of these communities, how they bound the issue of fairness, how they evaluate fairness, and how they consider the consequences of assessment both contemporaneously and historically. We conclude by contending that progress with respect to equity and justice will require an appreciation of and grappling with the nature of these differences and attention to boundaryspanners who have long identified with both communities.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"197 - 203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2087624","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The education measurement community has centered the idea of test fairness in both theory and practice. Yet, racial justice advocates in education research and practice (the racial justice community) have consistently critiqued that assessments are hardly fair and play a critical and outsized role in contributing to racial and social inequities in the educational system and larger society. We attempt to unpack two communities’ different perspectives and different conclusions about fairness and assessments. We argue that these differences are rooted in the historical makeup of these communities, how they bound the issue of fairness, how they evaluate fairness, and how they consider the consequences of assessment both contemporaneously and historically. We conclude by contending that progress with respect to equity and justice will require an appreciation of and grappling with the nature of these differences and attention to boundaryspanners who have long identified with both communities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两个社会对考试公平性的看法
摘要教育计量界在理论和实践上都以考试公平为中心。然而,教育研究和实践中的种族正义倡导者(种族正义界)一直批评,评估很难公平,在助长教育系统和更大社会中的种族和社会不平等方面发挥着关键和巨大的作用。我们试图揭示两个社区对公平和评估的不同观点和不同结论。我们认为,这些差异植根于这些社区的历史构成,他们如何约束公平问题,他们如何评估公平,以及他们如何在同一时期和历史上考虑评估的后果。最后,我们认为,在公平和正义方面取得进展需要认识和努力解决这些差异的性质,并关注长期认同这两个社区的边界人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Assessment
Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.
期刊最新文献
Dialect and Mathematics Performance in African American Children Who Use AAE: Insights from Explanatory IRT and Error Analysis Raising the Bar: How Revising an English Language Proficiency Assessment for Initial English Learner Classification Affects Students’ Later Academic Achievements Monitoring Rater Quality in Observational Systems: Issues Due to Unreliable Estimates of Rater Quality Improving the Precision of Classroom Observation Scores Using a Multi-Rater and Multi-Timepoint Item Response Theory Model High Stakes Assessments in Primary Schools and Teachers’ Anxiety About Work
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1